If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Why cant we know anything for certain if there is no God? Because you say so? You have not even begun to explain that one.

Ok, I am back. There are certain truths that must be assumed to be true prior to obtaining any knowledge. Everyone assumes these things are true, and yet only the Christian worldview can consistently provide a framework that can make sense of these assumptions. I will give you an example, we assume that there is an underlying uniformity found in nature, more specifically that future events will resemble past events under identical conditions. This uniformity makes it possible for us to use logical induction which science is based off of. If this uniformity was not assumed to be true, gaining knowledge through observation would be impossible; and yet, this uniformity only makes sense in a Christian worldview. The Christian can assume that the laws of nature we observe today will continue into the future because God has revealed to us that he governs His creation in a predictable and uniform manner (Gen 8). In an atheistic universe there is no reason whatsoever to assume this uniformity exists, so the atheist is actually borrowing capital from the Christian worldview whenever he conducts scientific inquiry or uses logical induction. This is just one example, there are over a half a dozen different presuppositions that must be made before we can know anything at all, and not a single one of them is cogent within an atheistic worldview. So we can conclude that if we lived in an atheistic universe we couldn’t know anything at all, much less that we lived in any such universe. So when an atheist appeals to his knowledge when arguing against the Christian God, he is refuting his own position.

Originally Posted by rob19

I don't even know where to begin with this one. The only precondition for intelligibility is a brain capable of intelligence.

Not quite, you also must assume that laws of logic exist, uniformity in nature exists, laws of morality exist, your senses are generally reliable, and your memory is generally reliable, just to name a few. All of these things must be assumed prior to gaining any knowledge, and none of these things make a wink of sense if God doesn’t exist.

God has nothing to do with the fact that I have a frontal cortex that understands that motion is governed by the Newtonian laws of physics;

There are two problems with this statement; first of all if you are merely a product of Darwinian mechanisms you have no reason to believe your ability to perceive your surroundings even accurately represents reality. Secondly, laws of nature are descriptive not normative, so you can’t say the laws of motion govern anything, they are merely descriptions of what we observe.

This is fallacy. We can/have empirically proven lots of things. We don't however, have any empirical evidence of the God you claim.

More problems here, first of all, empirical observation doesn’t deductively prove anything, but rather it is a form of inductive proof. If you see my post above you will see that the atheist cannot even justify his use of induction consistently within an atheistic universe. Additionally, the fact you can gain knowledge through empirical means IS proof that God exists because the act itself relies on presuppositions that only can be true if God exists.

Total DepravityUnconditional ElectionLimited AtonementIrresistible GracePerseverance of the Saints

I absolutely think your fundamental claim of God being necessary for knowledge is a ludicrous one not based anywhere in rational reality, but I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree Waldo, I was gonna write a really long response but I don't think it'd change your mind about anything. So just tell me how old you think the Earth is, & also, if you'd like to entertain my radical claims, what do you think about the whole "Jesus was a mushroom" bit on page 4?

I absolutely think your fundamental claim of God being necessary for knowledge is a ludicrous one not based anywhere in rational reality, but I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree Waldo,

What kind of response is this? If you think that you can have knowledge without God then demonstrate it, account for any of the preconditions of intelligibility in a manner that is consistent with an atheistic universe.

I was gonna write a really long response but I don't think it'd change your mind about anything.

Depends on what you wrote.

So just tell me how old you think the Earth is, & also, if you'd like to entertain my radical claims, what do you think about the whole "Jesus was a mushroom" bit on page 4?

So you ignore all of my points but then expect me to address yours? Are we operating under different sets of rules here?

What kind of response is this? If you think that you can have knowledge without God then demonstrate it, account for any of the preconditions of intelligibility in a manner that is consistent with an atheistic universe.

I absolutely think your fundamental claim of God being necessary for knowledge is a ludicrous one not based anywhere in rational reality, but I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree Waldo, I was gonna write a really long response but I don't think it'd change your mind about anything. So just tell me how old you think the Earth is, & also, if you'd like to entertain my radical claims, what do you think about the whole "Jesus was a mushroom" bit on page 4?

You do know a SCIENTIST proved that the earth was almost EXACTLY 6 days old if you are looking from the center of the known universe? Didn't you? It was on the history channel that I gravitate to frequently.

You do know a SCIENTIST proved that the earth was almost EXACTLY 6 days old if you are looking from the center of the known universe? Didn't you? It was on the history channel that I gravitate to frequently.